Two Three-Holed Stone Anchors from Kommos, Crete: Their Context, Type and Origin

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (1995) 24 .4: 279-291

Two three-holed stone anchors from Kommos, Crete: their context, type and origin

Joseph W. Shaw * Department of Fine Art, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1

Introduction The latest sherds found in the This article discusses two three-holed stone beddings and below the level of the tops of the anchors recently discovered at Kommos, a anchors were of LM IIIA1 date, and included Minoan and Greek site on the south coast of (in the case of anchor S 2234) Canaanite and Crete [1] . The Minoan settlement was inhabited Cypriot sherds. In addition, two fragments of from Middle Minoan I through Late Minoan Egyptian amphoras (C 9489 and C 9504) were IIIB, c. 2000 BC to 1250 BC, and is found in the same stratum, a short distance to topographically divided into two areas, the the west and to the east, just above the LM I town and the civic centre with two plaster floor. The stratum immediately above monumental ashlar buildings. The earlier, the anchors was later, including fragments of Building T, with a palatial plan and a large short-necked amphoras, which typify the LM central court, was built and also went out of IIIA2/IIIB floor accumulations within use in LM IA, but many of its walls and Building P. The latter date indicates the time spaces were later re-used. During LM IIIA2 after which the anchors had gone out of use as Building P was built upon its eastern wing. bases. The period when the anchors were abandoned at the harbour of Kommos could Context be much earlier, prior to the remodelling of The two anchors were found in a level that can the plaster floor of Building T in LM IIIA. be attributed to an intermediary period: after the palatial building went out of use and Catalogue of the Kommos Anchors before Building P took its characteristic form 1. S 2233 (Figs l-3c, Table 1). Trench 89A/ of six long parallel galleries opening towards Pail 6, Surface 2. LM IIIA1. the sea. The anchors were in situ , used as Maximum length: 0·665 m. Maximum bases, along with four other stones (S 2232, S width: 0·57 m. Maximum thickness: 2235- S 2237), set at intervals of about 2·30 m 0·165 m. Actual weight: 74 kg [2] . and with their tops at about the same level A roughly triangular limestone slab (+3·23 m- +3·29 m above present sea level). with rounded top and bottom, pierced by three The bases were set into beddings cut through roughly rounded holes. It is complete. The an LM I plaster floor on an east-west line slab was produced by natural cleavage and along part of the longitudinal axis of Gallery then fashioned to present shape. The rounded 3, and were probably used as temporary top and bottom appear to be intentional. All supports for P’s roof during the process of three holes (the largest is 0·10 m in diameter) construction. were probably cut by a chisel. As is the case with the second anchor, there is no evidence,

* With contributions from Marie-Pierre Aubry, William A. Berggren and Andrew Miall.

such as circular scorings, to show that any of fragments and bryozoans, and few other the holes were drilled, as was often the case in components, set in a micritic matrix. the Levant (Frost, 1975: 388). One of the Foram tests average about 0·25 mm in smaller holes was cut. perhaps unintentionally, diameter. Many tests are empty, giving the at an angle. Below the smaller hole there is a limestone a porosity o about 25% There [3] appears to have been virtually no re- mark, likely to be accidental . crystalization, and there is no The stone was identified by Andrew dolomitization.’ D. Miall as a pale buff-brown foraminiferal 2. S 2234 (Figs 1, 2, 4a & 4b, Table 1). limestone. He comments that: Trench 89A/Pails 6, 93, Surface 2. LM IIIA1. ‘Faint stratification is generated by Maximum length: 0·72 m. Maximum variations in mud or dust content of t width: 0·613m. Maximum thickness: the limestone, and broken shells are aligned parallel to bedding. 0·145m. Actual weight: 75 kg. Petrographically the limestone is a packstone, consisting of fairly densely packed foram tests with rare crinoid stem

280 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

itself, as in Fig. 6). For S 2234, a similar radius is about l·13 m long [4] . The top is carefully rounded by pecking. No tool marks apparent on either face. The natural limestone layering is less consolidated than that of S 2233, and when found was missing part of a corner, lost during antiquity (Fig. 4a). This same tendency to fracture was noted when it was removed from the site, for some of its lower part flaked off into small slabs. The anchor had cracked into at least five pieces in re-use, perhaps due to the weight of a post set upon it. The limestone does not match exactly any of the samples of limestone selected from the Kommos area but is nevertheless of a common type, according to John A. Gifford (pers. comm.), who recently published an analysis of the geology of Kommos (Gifford, 1995). Theoretically, it could occur somewhere in the Kommos region. Brooks Ellwood thinks that this anchor could have come from a different part of the same quarry,

from which the other anchor was extracted. A roughly triangular slab of limestone Andrew Miall noted that the stone is similar to with rounded bottom edge like S 2233 and that of the first anchor, but ‘stratification is not with three holes, the largest of which is visible. There are scattered rare grains of roughly rectangular but with rounded corners glauconite and limonite, and rare quartz grains like another anchor, S 636 (Fig. 5), found on (fine sand size).’ the Kommos hillside in a mixed context (Shaw & Blitzer 1983). The squarish rope Discussion hole on an anchor is sometimes thought to reflect local style. and hence origin (McCaslin, The discovery of the two new anchors brings 1980: 66). A possible hint of local preference the number of those found at Kommos, may be the curving bottoms of the two including one in the sea, to eight (Shaw & Kommos anchors. In both, the curves, as seen Blitzer, 1983: Shaw, 1984: 286 and pl. 60e). in the plans in Fig. 1, are fairly regular and do Six others are published or reported from not appear to be the result of wear. Since each elsewhere in definite Middle and Late Bronze anchor has a similar curve, it is probable that Age Aegean contexts and, interestingly, the arcs were intended. Technically, they include one (an irregular boulder) found in a town square in the LC IA settlement at could be the result of an arc cut by chisels on [5] the surface of a stone quarry before removal of Akrotiri, Thera (Marinatos, 1974: pl. 29) . the anchor blocks. The arc at the bottom of S Apart from the new Kommos anchors, those 2233, as seen in plan, can be roughly from Crete all appear to be of the triangular duplicated if a radius is drawn from about 1·23 type with a single hole pierced near the m on the midline of the anchor (that is, the smaller end. That from Makriyialos, of which midline of the anchor extended vertically over only the upper part with the rope hole is the main rope hole and beyond the anchor preserved, is associated by its discoverer with a tradition of sacred anchors (Davaras, 1980).

281 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

Of the three from Malia, one is from House Ea 61-67 and McCaslin, 1980: 33) Alternatively, (Pelon, 1970: 141 and pl. VII.2), while the it may also have had a religious function other two come from what has recently been (Shaw & Blitzer, 1983: 92) [7] . interpreted as a MM sanctuary dedicated to The importance of the two new the goddess of the sea, near Quartier Mu anchors from Kommos is that they are the first (Poursat 1980; 1992: 24 and fig. 12), making of their typo to be found on Crete [8] . In them the earliest anchors from Crete [6] . The addition to the large hole for the anchor rope. most elaborate Cretan anchor is one made of two smaller hole (44-62 mm in diameter) are porphyrite and decorated with a carved relief pierced through their lower part. As suggested depicting octopi. Evans thought that this in Fig. 7, the holes were probably for the anchor, found in the Fifteenth Magazine at the insertion of pointed, perhaps curving, wooden Palace of Knossos, served as a talent weight stakes that functioned like the flukes of a (Evans, 1935: 650-653: but see Davaras, 1980: metal anchor to hold the anchor to the sea

282 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

283 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

bottom [9] . Furthermore, the Kommos anchors Cyclades 1 (Mykonos museum) are among the few of their type from a Mainland Greece 1 (Cape Iria wreck) definable chronological context. Their Crete 2 (Kommos) association with Levantine and Cypriot 4 (Adriatic coast 2, pottery also lends further support to the idea, Italy Salerno 1, near originally suggested by the relatively high Tiber 1) frequency of imported sherds in contexts of France 1 (Marseille) that date at Kommos, of greater contact with foreign lands in LM IIIA (Shaw & Blitzer 1983: Watrous, 1992: 174). While rare in the Aegean, such three- holed of composite anchors are well known east of the Aegean, especially at coastal Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) in Syria, and at Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke in Late Bronze Age Cyprus [10] . The following list provides an idea of the numbers and geographical distribution of composite anchors in the Mediterranean, based on reported examples:

Syria-Palestine 28 (Ugarit 10, Athlit 18) Egypt 1 (Karnak) 38 (Kition 24, Hala Sultan Tekke 5, Capes Andreas, Cyprus Kiti, and Greco 9)

284 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

Of the approximately 37 anchors from Ugarit published by Frost, ten composite ones can be compared with those from Kommos (Frost, 1991: nos 4-5, 8, 15, 16, 18-21, 35. Nos 4 and 15 are illustrated in Fig. 8). Of these, live are roughly rectangular (square- shaped, elongated rectangular), like no. 4 in Fig. 8, the other five are roughly triangular, like no. 15 in Fig. 8. The sizes of the last group range from about 0·37 m to 0·90 m in height, their thickness about 0·10 m to 0·35 m. Concerning the dating of the three- holed anchors from Ugarit, all but one were found in the area of the Temple of Baal, which was used during the period of the 19th to the 13th century BC [11] . Ugarit is probably the earliest known context for composite anchors. Thus, the 14th-century Canaanite sherds found near the Kommos anchors may reflect a tradition of interchange between Ugarit and Minoan Crete [12] .

285 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

On the other hand, three-holed anchors were particularly popular in Cyprus, and it is tempting to suggest that the two Kommos anchors, found associated also with Cypriot pottery, are from Cyprus and were brought and left at Kommos either by Minoan or Cypriot traders [13] . Of the more than one hundred Late Bronze Age and Phoenician anchors from Kition (Frost. 1985), at least 18 of those illustrated in publications are of the three-holed type and are from Late Bronze Age context. Some of them are close parallels the tradition of three-holed anchors in Cyprus to the Kommian anchors. Compare for should shown to be at least as early as LM instance the sizes of four anchors from Kition IIIA1 (1390/1370-1370/1360 BC; dates from (Figs 8 & 9) with the Kommos examples Warren and Hankey, 1989: 169 and table 3.1), (Table 2) [14] . The presence of a Cypro-Minoan The earliest context for the positioning of sign on Kition no, 2618 may identify the those Kition, usually within the temples, is LC undated anchor Cypriot [15] . IIIA, about 1230-1190 BC or somewhat later, For the Kommian anchors to be at least 130 years after S 2233 and S 2234 plausibly connected with Cyprus, however, from Kommos were set in place (Buchholz &

286 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

and 34 in Frost (1991). although detailed examination of those samples themselves might generate a different opinion. Limestones can vary in petrographic character considerably within a few centimetres of bed thickness.’

Miall, therefore, finds possible parallels with Ugarit rather than with Cyprus. As we have seen, a lack of consistency in the geological make-up of limestone within a single quarry presents an obstacle to secure identification of provenance. Also, similar sediments/rock type of equivalent age are widely distributed over large areas of the Mediterranean. Another means of investigating provenance, however, lies in the identification of the microfossils present in the stone. The identification determines the geological age of the stone which, in turn, can be compared with the geological make-up of certain geographical areas. William A. Berggren and Marie-Pierre Aubry examined samples prepared from the Kommos anchor stones, and concluded that they are of an early Miocene age. They comment:

Sample S 2233: calcareous nannoplankton are extremely rare and include Sphenolithus neoabies , Karageorghis. 1973: 138; Frost, 1985: 295ff.; Coronocyclus nitiscens, Coccolithus miopelagicus, [16] Reticulofenestra floridana, Helicosphaera Merrillees, 1992: 51) . Possibly the earliest mediterraneana , and Triquetrorhabdulus milowi ; be Cypriot anchors are from Hala Sultan planktonic foraminifera include Globigerinoides Tekke, for they fall somewhere within the and globular tests of (supposed) globigerinides range of the 17th to the 13th century BC indeterminate taxa. Sample S 2234: calcareous (Frost, 1970: 14). nannoplankton arc abundant and include (in Can the geological character of the addition to large numbers of reworked forms from stone of at the anchors help to determine the the Eocene and Oligocene) Coccolithus geographical area where they were quarried? miopelagicus , Retucolofenestra bisects , R. Andrew Miall at compared microphotographs floridana , Sphenolithus neoabies , S. sp. cf. S. of their stone (Fig. 11) with those published delphix, Coronocyclus nitiscens, Helicosphaera carteri. H. intermedia, Triquetrorahabdulus by Frost from Ugarit (Frost. 1991: pls XIII- milowi and T. carinatus . These assemblages are XIV) and Kition (Frost, 1985: pls K-N). He indicative of early Miocene and probably noted that while the limestones making up the assignable to zone NN2 (Aquitanian to early two Kommos anchors are very similar to one Burdigalian Age), The complete absence among another, they are the planktonic foraminifera of any representation of the genus Orbulina , which is a common ‘not much like the photographed samples in the component of Mediterranean stratigraphies two publications. It is possible, however, that they beginning in the early Miocene (Langhian Stage) could have come from the same location as the supports the early Miocene age based on samples from Ugarit identified by numbers 11, 15, calcareous nannoplankton.

287 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

They also determined that the stone of What do the Kommian anchors tell to the anchors best fits that of Cyprus, Malta, or about the ships that may have earned them? Coastal Syria, north and south of modern The best evidence comes from the Ulu Burin Latakia which is just south of Ugarit [17] . Of merchant vessel, perhaps about 13-14 m long particular interest in narrowing the possibility and 4.5 m wide (G. Bass, after C. Pulak, letter of provenance for the Kommos anchors is that of 1/4/93). This is the only example to date of Crete can apparently be eliminated because a prehistoric wreck with its cargo largely the anchor stone. with calcareous intact Bass et al. 1989). The ship carried at nannofossils, is of early Miocene age, whereas least 24 anchors, most of sandstone, all with a carbonate deposition did not begin on Crete single hole. Eight were carried in the centre of until later, during the Middle Miocene [18] . the hull; 16 were in the bow (Wachsmann, in Once Malta, which is an unlikely press). If the number seems excessive, it may provenance for the anchors [19] , and Crete are have been expected that some anchors would omitted, Cyprus and Syria (probably Ugarit) be lost during a voyage. On the other hand, it become the likely geological sources for the is reasonable to suggest that some were Kommos anchors’ stone. Corroborative carried by the ship as items for trade. Six of evidence is provided by the anchor typology the larger ones were weighed and were found that points to these areas and by the imported to vary between 121 and 210 kg (Pulak, pers. pottery found in direct association with the comm. 24/7/93). There are two smaller ones in anchors. the 20 kg range, with the remainder falling

288 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

within these two main groupings. The belong in this middle category. Given the Kommos anchors, about 75 kg each, would actual range of the weight of individual anchors being carried by this single ship, it Geological expertise was provided by can only be suggested that the Kommos Professors Brooks Ellwood (University of anchors were probably originally intended to Texas at Arlington), John Gifford (University form part of group being carried for use at sea. of Miami) and Andrew Miall (University of Like those carried by the Ulu Burun ship, they Toronto), as well as Drs William A. Berggren wool probably be selected for use by the crew (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), in terms of prevailing water depth, relative Marie-Pierre Aubry (Institut des Sciences de speed of current, wind factors, and bottom (l’Evolution, University of Montpelier, type. It also possible that the two unworn France), Fritz F. Steininger (University of anchors wet left at Kommos as the result of a Vienna) and Fred Rögl (Naturhistorische commercial exchange. Museum, Vienna). Gordon Nixon (University of Toronto) excavated the anchors and Acknowledgments Barbara Hamann (Oriental Institute) For their help, the author is indebted to Honor reconstituted S 2234, discovered broken. Frost, Dr Vassos Karageorghis, Dr Professors Jeremy Rutter (Dartmouth College) Charalambos Kritsas and Drs George Bass, and Maria C. Shaw (University of Toronto) Cemal Pulak and Shelley Wachsmann from commented on drafts of the article. the Institute for Nautical Archaeology.

289 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

Notes [1] For the most recent report and references to earlier reports, see Shaw & Shaw, 1993. [2] It is important that anchors are actually weighed, where possible, for weights based solely on stone type and cubic content can be erroneous. The two Kommos anchors weigh about 75 kg each. Using the weight estimation method suggested by Frost, S 2233 would have weighed 142·4 kg and S 2234 would have weighed 155·8 kg, (calculated by Gordon Nixon). [3] It was inspected by Eric Hallager, knowledgeable in Linear scripts, who did not find it to be significant. [4] There are few parallels. Curving bottoms are visible, however, on published examples from Ugarit (Frost, 1991: plate III, 5 and plate IV, 7 ) and from Kition (Frost, 1985: fig. 8.7 No. 4978 and fig. 9.9 No. 51181. No. 4978 from Kition, a composite anchor of conglomerate, probably provides the closest parallel since in plan its bottom profile is a fairly regular curve and in section the anchor bottom is not rounded, like S 2234. [5] Harriet Blitzer recently decided that some of the holed stones published earlier as anchors from Kommos (Shaw & Blitzer, 1983) may in fact be weights used in olive presses (Blitzer, 1995). However, anchors could have been brought to land and re-used as weights, or as building materials as is the case with the two three-holed anchors presently under consideration. [6] Another pierced stone, originally published as an anchor, is from Petras in eastern Crete (Tsipopoulou, 1989). Ms Tsipopoulou now thinks that since it is so light (8·6 kg) it probably served some other purpose (pers. comm. 15/2/94). [7] For recent surveys of Aegean anchors, see Nibbi, 1993: 12-15; also Wachsmann, in press . [8] A similar Aegean anchor, as pointed out to me by Shelley Wachsmann, is of unknown provenance in the Aegean Maritime Museum at Mykonos, illustrated in Motion, Olympic Airways Magazine , May 1990: 82. Another was located underwater in 1974 in the vicinity of the Late Bronze Age wreck ( c. 1200 BC) near Cape Iria southeast of Nauplion (Pennas & Lolos, 1991: 16). Charalambos Pennas and Yannis Vichos have kindly provided information that this anchor, still under study, is quite different from the Kommos examples, being smaller (0·48 m x 0·405 m x 0·075 m) and much lighter (25 kg versus 74-75 kg). It is of hard conglomerate rather than the more usual limestone. In addition, the three holes are of the same diameter (0·04 m); usually in such anchors the upper hole is considerably larger than the two toward the lower part of the anchor. It also appears that the anchor cannot be dated with safety to the Late Bronze Age despite its position within the context of the wreck. Yannos Lolos, responsible for the publication of the pottery finds from the wreck, notes that the wreck contains Late Cypriot IIC/IIIA pithoi and jugs and LH IIIB2/LM IIIB2 vases, including six coarse-ware stirrup jars probably of Cretan provenance (pers. comm. 19/1/94). [9] Frost notes that fishermen in Syria prefer the composite stone anchor type to the modern metal ones, since if the wooden flukes get stuck on the bottom, they can simply be broken off by pulling hard enough on the anchor rope (Frost, 1975: 393). Another possibility, suggested by Nibbi (1993: 10, fig. 8a) is that the additional holes could have served to secure the heavy anchor if it were on the side of the vessel. [10] Nibbi has reviewed the chronology and variety of stone anchors, of which perhaps the earliest is from Egypt, and datable to no later than c. 2345 BC (Nibbi, 1993: 11). Usually, stone anchors, which continued in use after the Bronze Age, have a single hole. The three-holed type was used concurrently with single-holed anchors. There are no composite examples from Bronze Age Byblos and only one from Egypt, a Kition-type possibly dedicated there by Cypriots but apparently made of local stone (McCaslin, 1990: 35; Frost, 1991: 371). Undated examples are reported from Italy (the Adriatic coast, Salerno, and near the mouth of the Tiber) and France (near Marseilles; Nibbi, 1993: 17). [1l] ! " #$ %&%' # -368, 377-378; Nibbi, 1993: 12. [12] A. Raban (1988: 285-288) has suggested that composite anchors were invented by the Sea Peoples during the 13th century BC . However, the probable earlier contexts for the Ugaritic

290 J. W. SHAW: STONE ANCHORS FROM KOMMOS

composite anchors, and the definite LM IIIA1 (first half of the 14th century BC) context for the two Kommos anchors being published here make this theory unlikely. [13] McCaslin suggests that Cypriot or Cypro-Syrian ships carried out much of the east-west trade (1980: 119). Nibbi made a similar suggestion about Kommos in particular (1993: 13). However, Frost (1991: 370; 1993: 453) has commented that the relatively light weight of the anchors described by Shaw & Blitzer (1983), as well as the fact that they could be of local stone, suggest local craft or even fishermen's weights, apart from S 636 (Fig. 5) which could have anchored the larger seagoing craft. The two new Kommos anchors would tend to strengthen the case for international connections, at least for the transitional period between the desertion of Building T and the construction of Building P. For P’s possible use for storing ships, which would therefore probably be Cretan, see M. Shaw, 1985; also Shaw & Shaw, 1993: 188. [14] For the Kition examples: Frost 1985: 295 and pl. A(6) for 4972-4973; 296 and pl. A(7) for 2618; 311 and pl. 11(9) for 1097. [15] As to the sign on the anchor, Jeremy Rutter has noted (pers. comm. 4/12/1993) that Cypriots frequently marked non-Cypriot items such as Mycenaean and Levantine transport containers with Cypro-Minoan countermarks. [16] Honor Frost, who initiated the study of ancient stone anchors, has published with care those from Ugarit (1969 $' ( )01 2# b ), and Kition (1985), and helped establish a working typology (Frost, 1973; 1975, 1991). Others, especially McCaslin (1980) and Nibbi (most recently, 1993), have discussed and added new examples to the growing corpus. [17] Steininger et al. , 1985: I, 34-38, 50-51; II, 117-120, 123-125, 197, 200, 315. [18] A more comprehensive study of anchor stone provenance, or for that matter the provenance of fossiliferous limestone suspected of being imported, might be initiated. This would be based on fossil evidence from the anchors themselves together with building stone from related sites. [19] Malta does not have a known contemporary tradition of pierced stone anchors, nor was it as closely connected with Aegean trade routes as were Cyprus and Syria. However, at Kommos during LM IIIA1 there appears the first evidence for interconnections with Italy, and with Sardinia in particular, but with no evidence as yet for Malta (Watrous, 1992: 163).

References Bass, G. F., Pulak, C . , Collon, D. & Weinstein, J. 1989, The Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun, 1986 campaign, AJA , 93 : 1-29. Blitzer, H., 1995, Minoan implements and industries. In: Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . (Eds), Kommos, I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1, The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries . Chapter 8. Princeton. Buchholz, H.-G. & Karageorghis, V., 1973, Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus: An Archaeological Handbook . London. Davaras, C . , 1980, Une ancre minoenne sacrée? BCH , 104 : 47-71. Evans, Sir A., 1935, The Palace of Minos at Knossos, IV . London. Frost, H., 1969 $ 3 " 4 -anchors of Ugarit. Ugaritica , XVII : 235-244. Frost, H., 1969 b , The stone-anchors of Byblos. Mélanges de l'université Saint-Joseph , XLV : 425-442. Beirut. Frost, H., 1970, Some Cypriot stone-anchors from land sites and from the sea. RDAC , 14-24. Frost, H., 1973, Anchors, the potsherds of marine archaeology: on the recording of pierced stones from the Mediterranean. In: Blackman, D. (Ed.), Marine Archaeology , 397-409. London. Frost, H., 1975, Bronze Age stone-anchors from the Eastern Mediterranean, dating and identification. Mariner’s Mirror , 61 : 377-394. Frost, H., 1985, The Kition anchors. In: Karageorghis, V. & Demas, M. (Eds), Excavations at Kition,V, The Pre-Phoenician Levels (Areas I and II), Part I, Appendix I : 281-321. Nicosia. Frost, H., 1991, Anchors sacred and profane; Ugarit-Ras Shamra, 1986; the stone anchors revised and

291 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24. 4

compared. In Yon, M. (Ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit, VI: Arts et Industries de la pierre . 355-410. ERC Paris. Frost, H., 1993, Stone anchors: a reassessment reassessed. Mariner’s Mirror , 79 : 449-458. Galili, E., Sharvit, J. & Artzy, M., 1994. Reconsidering Byblian and Egyptian stone anchors using numeral methods: new finds from the Israeli coast. IJNA , 23 : 93-107. Gifford, J., 1995, The Physical Geology of the Western Mesara and Kommos. In: Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . (Eds), Kommos I, Part 1, The Kommos Region, Ecology and Minoan Industries . 30-90. Princeton. Kapitän, G., 1984, Ancient anchors—technology and classification. IJNA , 13 : 33-44. Marinatos, S., 1974. Excavations at Thera , VI (1972 Season). Athens. McCaslin, D. E., 1980, Stone anchors in antiquity: coastal settlements and maritime trade-routes in the Eastern Mediterranean ca. 1600-1050 B.C., SIMA , 61 . Göteborg. Merrillees, R. S., 1992, The absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in Cyprus: a revision. BASOR , 288 : 47-52. Nibbi, A., 1993, Stone anchors: the evidence re-assessed. Mariner’s Mirror , 79 : 5-26. Pelon, O., 1970, Fouilles exécutées a Mallia (III), le Quartier E (1963-1966), Études Crétoises , 16. Pennas, Ch. & Lolos, I., 1991, Underwater surface exploration at the wreck of Late Bronze Age period at the Peninsula of Iria. Enalia , III : 8-25. Poursat, J.-C . , 1980, Les ancres du Quartier Mu, Fouilles Exécutées à Mallia, Le Quartier Mu, II, Études Crétoises , 26 : 235-238. Paris. Poursat, J.-C . , 1992, Guide de Malia au temps ties premiers palais , Le Quartier Mu, É cole Française d’Athènes. Sites et Monuments , VIII . Raban, A., 1988, The constructive maritime role of the Sea Peoples in the Levant. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c.1500-1100 B.C.) , Proceedings of the International Symposium, Haifa, May 1985 (Heltzer, M. & Lipinski, E., Eds). Leuven. Schaeffer, C . F. A., 1978, Remarques sur les ancres en pierre d’Ugarit. Ugaritica , VII : 371-381). Mission de Ras Shamra. Paris. Shaw, J. W., 1973, Minoan architecture: materials and techniques. Annuario delta Scuola Archeologica di Atene XLIX, (N.S. XXXIII 1971) . Rome. Shaw, J. W., 1984, Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1982-1983. Hesperia , 53 : 251-287. Shaw, J. W. & Blitzer, H., 1983, Stone weight anchors from Kommos, Crete. IJNA , 12 : 91-100. Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . , 1993, Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1986-1992. Hesperia , 62 ; 129- 190. Shaw, J. W. & Shaw M. C . (Eds), 1995, Kommos, I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1, The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries . Princeton. Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . , in press, A proposal for Bronze Age Aegean ship-sheds in Crete. Tropis . Shaw, M. C . , 1985, Late Minoan I buildings J/T, and Late Minoan III buildings N and P at Kommos: their nature and possible uses as residences, palaces, or emporia. In: Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . (Eds), A Great Minoan Triangle in Southcentral Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos. Scripta Mediterranea , 6 : 19-25. Toronto. Steininger, F. F., Series, J., Kleemann, K. & Rögl, F., 1985, Neogene of the Mediterranean Tethys and Paratethys, Stratigrophic Correlation Tables and Sediment Distribution Maps , I and II. Vienna. Tsipopoulou, M., 1989. A Minoan anchor from Petras, Siteias. AE 128 : 121-128. Wachsmann, S., in press, Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant . Warren, P. & Hankey, V., 1989, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology . Bristol. Watrous, L. V., 1992, The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Kommos , III (Shaw, J. W. & Shaw, M. C . [Eds]). Princeton.

292